Make the check of mixed block groups early.
Reason:
We do not support re-initing extent tree for mixed block groups.
So it will return -EINVAL in function reinit_extent_tree.
In this situation, we do not need to start transaction.
We do not have a btrfs_abort_transaction like kernel now,
so we should prevent starting transaction not necessary.
Output message when run test 003 in fuzz-test:
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs check --init-extent-tree
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/tests/fuzz-tests/images/bko-154961-heap-overflow-chunk-items.raw.restored
We don't support re-initing the extent tree for mixed block groups yet, please
notify a btrfs developer you want to do this so they can add this functionality.
transaction.h:42: btrfs_start_transaction: BUG_ON fs_info->running_transaction
triggered, value 11477904
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs[0x411adf]
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs(close_ctree_fs_info+0x312)[0x413c93]
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs(cmd_check+0x5b1)[0x45d46a]
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs(main+0x85)[0x40acd9]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf1)[0x7f0d957d3401]
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs(_start+0x2a)[0x40a88a]
Checking filesystem on
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/tests/fuzz-tests/images/bko-154961-heap-overflow-chunk-items.raw.restored
UUID: e0d334b9-d48f-49f3-9c6b-45fc8e0ec0c7
Creating a new extent tree
failed (ignored, ret=134): /home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/btrfs check
--init-extent-tree
/home/gujx/btrfs/btrfs-progs/tests/fuzz-tests/images/bko-154961-heap-overflow-chunk-items.raw.restored
mayfail: returned code 134 (SIGABRT), not ignored
Signed-off-by: Gu Jinxiang <g...@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
cmds-check.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
index c5faa2b..357623e 100644
--- a/cmds-check.c
+++ b/cmds-check.c
@@ -11914,21 +11914,6 @@ static int reinit_extent_tree(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
int ret;
/*
- * The only reason we don't do this is because right now we're just
- * walking the trees we find and pinning down their bytes, we don't look
- * at any of the leaves. In order to do mixed groups we'd have to check
- * the leaves of any fs roots and pin down the bytes for any file
- * extents we find. Not hard but why do it if we don't have to?
- */
- if (btrfs_fs_incompat(fs_info, MIXED_GROUPS)) {
- fprintf(stderr, "We don't support re-initing the extent tree "
- "for mixed block groups yet, please notify a btrfs "
- "developer you want to do this so they can add this "
- "functionality.\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- /*
* first we need to walk all of the trees except the extent tree and pin
* down the bytes that are in use so we don't overwrite any existing
* metadata.
@@ -12963,6 +12948,23 @@ int cmd_check(int argc, char **argv)
if (init_extent_tree || init_csum_tree) {
struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
+ /*
+ * The only reason we don't do this is because right now we're
+ * just walking the trees we find and pinning down their bytes,
+ * we don't look at any of the leaves. In order to do mixed
+ * groups we'd have to check the leaves of any fs roots and
+ * pin down the bytes for any file extents we find.
+ * Not hard but why do it if we don't have to?
+ */
+ if (init_extent_tree && btrfs_fs_incompat(info, MIXED_GROUPS)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "We don't support re-initing the extent
tree "
+ "for mixed block groups yet, please
notify a btrfs "
+ "developer you want to do this so they
can add this "
+ "functionality.\n");
+ goto close_out;
+
+ }
+
trans = btrfs_start_transaction(info->extent_root, 0);
if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
error("error starting transaction");
--
2.9.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
